Doug Ragan presents My Presidential Campaign Health Care posted at I'm A Pundit Too, saying, "Our health care system has some series issues, and is in process of being completely socialized by nanny state loving Democrats. If this election goes as history tells us it will, then the Democrats will own the Congress and the White House. When the Republicans owned this, they tried to pass some common sense legislation, much of which managed to get shot down by procedures that the Democrats used to outmaneuver the Republicans. The dems didn’t step on this legislation because they thought it was a bad idea. They stepped on it because they knew it would help the system and this would prevent them from hitting their goals. Of course, the Republicans could have used a bit more leadership to get more legislation passed, but they weren’t very good at their jobs, and now some of them are working at FoxNews."

Alberto O. Pareja-Lecaros presents Don't Be Ignorant posted at Youth Politics, saying, "A blog to bring out the youth voter's voice and bring my own thoughts about politics of today."

And don't tell me it's your right, or "every other smoker does it." It's NOT and they don't. My mom has been smoking since a teenager (yeah, she's lucky and stupid) and I have NEVER seen her litter. In fact, when she stamps out a cigarette, she picks it up and puts it in her pocket until she finds a suitable container to put it in.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

This is the first post in a series I am calling "If I Were a Motor..." I'm not sure how many posts will be included because there are a ton of motors I wouldn't mind being. Most are motors that arose from the "muscle car era" that started back in the 60s (Preview: Chevy 454 "Rat" and 350 "Mouse," Ford small blocks, 5 liters, and the Boss series, don't forget Mopar 340 and the venerable "Hemi") but some are modern-day motors that power the Corvette, Ford GT, Ferrari (of course!) and Lambos.

First up is my all-time favorite, the one I grew up with. I grew up in a "Ford family."

Wait! Come back!! :)

That being the case, I was surrounded by small block Fords and chatter about the 427 FE and SOHC, 429 BOSS, and 351 Windsors and Clevelands. My first car was a 1983 Ford Mustang GT that I once got up to 130, which was pretty fast way back when.

Needless to say, I worked a lot on that car. It had a "5.0 Liter" V8 (also known as a 302) and it loved to rev to 6000 RPM. Ford's small block V8, which had started out as a 260 cubic inch "little" motor, powering things like the Falcon and first-ever Pony car, the mid-60s Mustang (based in the Falcon, by the way), not to mention the very first Cobra, grew into a 289 (our Ford Fairlane had one of those. Man, it was fast), then a 302, and finally a 351 Winsdor.

The 351 Cleveland was a cross between the 351W and a Boss 302 (basically, a 351W with Boss 302 heads, with some beefing up and modification to the engine block).

In any event, the reason I love the small block Ford is that they're so easy to modify. You want a part to make it go faster? Only time and money will stop you. Parts are cheap, relatively speaking, but there are so many hot-rodding parts that you'll go broke if you buy them all.

Want a few extra horsepower? Replace the intake manifold. Want a little more pep? Swap out the stock carburetor for something a little more powerful, like a Holley 4 barrel or an Edelbrock (where did the Predator go?). Want 15 horsepower? Remove the stock exhaust manifolds and replace them with a set of headers.

So easy to work on, too. The distributor is right up front, everything is within easy reach, and parts are available at your local NAPA and Kragen dealers, along with a TON of aftermarket shops online.

Most of this is due to the overwhelming popularity of the Ford Mustang, dating all the way back to the 60s, but really taking hold with my generation's fascination with the "Fox-based" (aka Fairmont) Mustang III that started in 1979 but really became popular in the mid- to late 80s.

They're "short stroke" runners that love the higher RPM range, especially if you have modified heads (the exhaust ports have always been on the small side). They make a wonderful sound, too.

What a fine piece of American (really Canada, as in Windsor, Canada) ingenuity.

On par, or in competiton, with the venerable Ford small block is the Chevy and Dodge (aka, Mopar) small blocks. I'll probably talk about those next. Be sure to come back for the next installment of this series. Sure to piss off "the other guys," I'll pick another motor for the next installment. Maybe with more pictures!

Technology has come a long way since I bought my first aftermarket "head unit" from Pioneer back in 1984. I went through quite a few tape decks during my years with a souped up Mustang: Pioneer (fetish for quality imposed its early demise), then Concord, then Clarion's high-end Audia. Got the amps (ADS), the hi-fi speakers, did it all myself.

I once got a ticket for disturbing the peace on a hot summer night.

Good times.

Nowadays, with digitized music, why do I care about CD changers, iPod connections and the like? Why can't I just connect wirelessly to a music server in the sky and fetch my songs that I bought with my own money?

The "music industry" (really just a bunch of pimps), that's why. But I digress.

Here's my vision for the future of car audio (and video, for that matter, though I don't see the appeal of video because I'm always the driver!!!).

Two methods of music storage. Keep your CDs, DVDs, iTunes, and other music at home. Either carry it all around in the form of a disk drive (USB, hard disk, doesn't really matter, as long as it's small, portable, and bulletproof) or access it wirelessly through the ether.

Head units will still have tuners and amps. They'd all have voice recognition, though, since I'd want to say, "Play Van Halen's You Really Got Me" (the song that got me pulled over nearly 25 years ago) and, like magic, it would play.

I could carry my music-filled disk around with me (maybe on a key chain) and plug it in wherever: My car, my SUV, my boat, or my freakin' airplane. Hey, I could even plug it into my friend's home stereo. What a concept!

Or, better yet, I could share my music (with authentication) with my car, truck, boat, plane, or friend over the Internet.

In short, everything would be web-ready and wireless. With voice recognition. This technology would be smart, too. It would remember where I left off, would keep track of what my most -- and least -- played songs, albums, and lists are, and it would tell me when my favorites have been updated, included in a soundtrack or compilation (I might like the other songs there, too), or when one of my favorite artists were in town.

It would give me advance notice of ticket prices and places, too. Maybe even discounts for frequent listening.

By the way, the home audio industry has done some of this, but not all. The ideal world would present me with zero barriers to take and play my music anywhere.

The "music industry" has so much potential but absolutely no imagination. It's amazing to me that the industry has creators of the content who are so innovative and creative, and the rulers of the universe are so brain-dead, incompetent, and closed-minded.

It's a shame, really. Enterprising originators of music (also known as singers and writers) could take some of these suggestions and run with them, but the infrastructure and industry must take an active, empowering role in all of this.

This stuff would be standards-based (something Sony and Phillips know about) and needs wide industry backing, funding, and support.

I'd love for somebody, like Sony, Amazon, or Apple, to take the lead. But they won't because they're all so damned complacent.

It is perplexing to me that the same people who go on and on about "Barack Hussein Obama" (implying he's some relation to Sadaam Hussein and/or that he's a Muslim) hold the idea that he knows nothing about the Middle East.

I was listening to "conservative" talk radio this morning (I think it was Brian "the Sussman" Sussman) on AM 560 where they were conjecturing about the number of speeches that Obama had given regarding the Middle East, implying that he knew little to nothing about the region.

These are the same guys who use Barack's full name when they talk about him.

So what are they doing here?

On the one hand, they're calling him a Muslim, hoping you make the leap that he follows Islam (while at the same time telling you he listens to a creepy minister at a Christian church), which makes him evil because all Islamists are radical. So the thought goes.

On the other hand, they're saying he knows nothing about the Middle East.

So tell me this: If Muslims are concentrated in the Middle East, and Barack Obama is a Muslim, then wouldn't he know just a little more that we do about the region? I mean, if you're Irish, you probably have a little more knowledge of Ireland than my Mexican friend, Pedro, no?

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

There is a lot of hyperbole floating around the ether about illegal immigrants (or "illegals" as those opposed to them are wont to say) committing crime and that felons who happen to be here in the US illegally ought to be deported pronto.

First of all, the statistics don't support the contention that illegal immigrants commit any more crimes -- proportunately -- than people born and raised here.

Second, if your contention is that illegal immigrants ought not to be here in the first place, then why not deport them all?

Third, and this is the really big one, in my opinion, if we do embark on the quest to deport illegal immigrants who commit crimes (the severity of which is ripe for conjecture, as in: Where does one draw the line? Murder? Rape? Burglary? Assault? Dime store theft of candy?), what assurances do we get from the foreign entity to which we do the deporting that the recently deported will a) go to jail and serve the time to which they were sentenced? and b) that they won't just come back here and commit more crime?

After all, some of the same folks who contend that people here illegally commit a lot of crimes are the same folks who believe that the criminal justice system does not work. And if it doesn't work, then that simply means that once out, the convicted criminal just goes about committing more crime.

No.

I say if you commit a crime here, you do the time here. I know, it's a burden on our penal system to serve non-citizens. But isn't it a burden on our society to let criminals out of our grasp and out of our control? I mean, it's best to keep your friends close and your enemies closer, as the saying goes, right?

I agree that we need to take lots of different kinds of steps to ease our foreign dependence on oil. I am just not enough of an expert to say that drilling in Alaska, or anywhere else, will make more than a few dollars' difference. At $15, a few dollars means something. But at $150? Who cares?

The BoBo presents Are liberals waking up to the Obamessiah? posted at The BoBo Files, saying, "The political correctness surrounding Obama has many fearing speaking up against him. Here's a review of a post by a liberal black columnist who thinks people should think twice before voting for Obama in November."

It does seem that right about now Barack Obama is beyond reproach. If elected, however, he'll find out what criticism is.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Interesting idea from the folks at Spinner. Johnny Cash not only makes the list twice (who could guess?), he tops it with Delia's Gone. The Boss makes the cut, too. There's some rap, some rock, some country, and some punk. Pretty good list.

Rolling Stone is famous for putting out lists, and this one is sure to stir some comments and emotions. It is the "100 Greatest Guitar Songs of All Time," and it contains some whoppers sure to piss off some folks.

For example, Brown Sugar by the Rolling Stones comes in at #5. WTF?

Johnny B. Goode tops the list. I can go with that. But Born to Run at #14? I mean, I love the song and I love the Boss, but Born is not a great guitar song. It may be in the Top 100, but #14? C'mon!

AC/DC's Back in Black is #29? Huh? How about #1??? That's got to be one of the greatest opening riffs of any song EVER! Damn.

Anyway, enjoy. I encourage comments. Be nice, but tell it like it is. Check out the new sidebar widget from Amazon called MP3 Clips -- it has a few of the songs that made the list. If you'd like me to add a song, tell me.

Monday, July 14, 2008

When asked what is the first thing he thinks of when he thinks of the city of Pittsburgh, John McCain thinks of the Steelers. Why? Because he listed the Steelers defensive line when asked who his Vietnam soldier companions were while he was being tortured.

Except that he didn't.

One of his books telling the story of his torture says he listed the Green Bay Packers offensive unit as his mates.

So did the story dramatizing the book.

So which is it?

Seems like "Straight Talk" is bullshit. What do you think?

Is McCain just crazy? Forgetful? Senile? Or is he a liar? Which of these characteristics do you value in a president?

Welcome to the July 14, 2008 edition of Rants. This is a really good set.

Rant of the Week

It was really tough to pick just one. These are all deserved WINNERS! But the following is my favorite:

Ian Bowman presents Default VI: Employer posted at If It Feels Good Do It, saying, "I'm really glad you were into my last rant about sticker displaying hybrid owners. This rant is simply about people who work at Google. It's a specialized rant, but the people that get it seem to love it."

I especially like the "default messages" to Google men and women. Those are spot-on perfect.

Yep. McCain is just dumber and older. I hope he picks a great, young, and smart running mate. We'll see him (or her) sooner rather than later. I have every confidence John McCain will die or be committed to an institution before his presidency runs out (if he's elected, of course).

NotYourDaddy presents Mommeeeee ? It's Not Fair! posted at Government is not your Daddy., saying, "'He got more than me. Mommy, make him give me some of his.' Does that sound like childish whining? As childish as it may sound, it’s the basis of the most devastatingly destructive politico-economic folly of the modern age. When you take that same concept and translate it into adult language, it comes out as the redistribution of wealth."

I agree. What's mine is mine and what's yours is ours. Or something like that. Isn't that the American way?

NotYourDaddy presents What is Conservatism? posted at Government is not your Daddy., saying, "Conservatism is about believing in the principles on which this country was founded. Those principles are grounded, not in the unlimited powers of government to regulate every aspect of our lives, but in our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I love the Colbert Report! The writers there are as talented as the Simpson's writers, only more topical and they have to be on their game 4 times a week, as opposed to what, 13 times a year? Scratch that, they're WAY MORE TALENTED than the Simpson's writers.

This is astonishing. It still amazes me the corruption that goes on behind closed doors; I always feel so silly when I read these stories and get upset about it. MONEY makes the world go 'round!

I especially like this quote about the Republican's penchant for feeding at the public trough: "They've made the Democrats look like coupon-clippers who wear their socks twice to save on detergent."

DWSUWF presents Mr. Sullivan - May I show you your petard? posted at Divided We Stand United We Fall, saying, "The fact is Mr. Sullivan, that when you argue for the inevitability of an Obama victory, you argue for a massive concentration of single party Democratic power and even fewer fetters on a unitary executive than were on President George W. Bush. That is unlike the soul of any conservative I have ever known."

Yeah, Sullivan kind of bugs me nowadays. Back before Bush, I liked Andrew; he was a breath of fresh air. Now he's just a little bitch. I mean, I agree with him, for the most part, on his distaste for the Republican party in general and President Bush in particular, but he just whines about it incessantly. Pick up some new topics. He's a smart guy.

My trips to the mountains make me think that the people avoiding city life may have it right and all of the rest of us are wrong. Leaving behind all of the priorities of traditional society, even for a brief period, is incredibly liberating.

Truer words have never been spoken. One thing to keep in mind, if you ever fly: Take a look down and you'll see most of our land is unspoiled by urban life. There really is very little population density; it just seems that way. Like "Can't see the forest for the trees."

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Talk about unintended consequences! It's about time this guy got some negative press about the shit he spews. I'm so tired of Jesse Jackson ("the Reverend," huh!) talking smack and not being able to back it up with America for at least 20 years now.

"I want to cut his nuts off." Jackson said this, referring to Barack Obama's testicles, because he supposedly was pissed off about how Obama "talks down to black people" (Jackson's words, not mine or anybody else's -- it was all there on video).

Well, well, well, Jesse. Those are not presidential words. They are not words coming from a man of faith.

They are words coming from a man (used loosely) who is filled with hate. Jesse Jackson is simply not a man. And now it's confirmed: He has no balls; he cut them off in public. Way to go. The Rainbow Coalition means so much more to me now!

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Driving the other day, I was behind a guy (I assume, it was a GIANT 4x4 with hunting bumper stickers on it) who had a bumper sticker about gun control:

Gun control is using two hands

Gun control is a strange concept to me, not that we should let just anyone own a gun, but it's not the guns that kill people, it's the bullets. And the only way bullets get into, and out of, guns is by people loading and unloading them.

So, either control people through legislation (if you use a gun in a crime, get X years added onto your sentence), or control the disposition of bullets. It used to be, at least in California, that whenever you purchased handgun ammunition, you had to show ID and your information was recorded. I'm sure that law went down the tubes due to some dumbass concerned about "privacy" (meanwhile all of our privacy has gone out the freakin' window. Google FISA. Or Tim Ferriss.)

Here's a blog post by Freakonomics author, Steven D. Levitt. In a nutshell, there is no evidence that banning guns, as has been done in San Francisco, Chicago, and Washington DC (recently turned back by the US Supreme Court), has any effectiveness whatsoever.

It's always great to be able to point to facts and evidence to arrive at a conclusion. The conclusion here is that banning guns has no effect on crime.

Sunday, July 06, 2008

Welcome to the July 6 edition of Rants. There weren't a lot of submissions and BlogCarnival let me down again. At least they email me the posts that you all submitted; otherwise, I'd be in a real bind :)

Been there, done that. Heard that. Said that. There is such a negative vibe against teachers right now; it's not their fault. It's the administration. And the state. Not to mention the federal government with their stupid "No Child Left Behind" crap.

Thursday, July 03, 2008

I want to make a very special announcement: I've launched (or is it "re-launched?") two new sites, the corporate site for my computer consulting business, Computer Monkeys (established in 1996), and the Official Computer Monkeys Blog.

If you don't mind, give the sites a look. Tell me what you think. I welcome all criticisms and suggestions.

If you like what you see, please bookmark the sites, link to them, give them some link love! Feel free to twit, stumble, digg, add to Facebook and MySpace. I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks, and Happy Fourth of July!

By the way, this is no doubt a shameless plug. I will do my best to refrain from mentioning these sites again.

Music

LinkShare

MyBlogLog

Networks

MP3 Clips

Who Am I?

I subscribe to real conservatism: Small, non-intrusive government that believes in fiscal responsibility and deference to state's rights. I believe in the Constitution and everything that goes along with it, including the ability and necessity to change it when conditions warrant doing so.